ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Accuracy of Clinical Staging of Localized Colon Cancer: A National Cancer Database Cohort Analysis.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk assessment of lymph node metastasis and comparison of treatment modalities for low-risk T1b colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Preoperative CT Nodal Staging Versus Pathology in Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Multicentre Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Plasma serine and glycine in relation to clinical outcomes following neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A pre-trained foundation model framework for multiplanar MRI classification of extramural vascular invasion and mesorectal fascia invasion in rectal cancer.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Commentary on "Shifting Paradigm: Utilization and Outcomes with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for cT4 and cN2 Colon Cancers".Cancers · 2026Article
- A subset of MMR-proficient colon cancers responds to neoadjuvant immunotherapy.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- The patient journey and guideline-concordant care in colorectal cancer-is current practice enough?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Outcome After Surgery for Colon Cancer in a National Cohort of Patients With and Without Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Mesentery morphological features on computed tomography for preoperative prediction of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis in colon cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess concordance between clinical and pathologic assessment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis of patients with stage I-III colon cancer in the National Cancer Database (2010-2019) was conducted. Concordance between clinical and pathologic assessment of colon cancer was calculated using Kappa coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsA total of 125,473 patients (51.2% female; mean age 68.2 years) were included. There was moderate concordance between clinical and pathologic T stage (Kappa = 0.606, 95%CI: 0.602-0.609) and between clinical and pathologic N stage (Kappa = 0.506, 95%CI: 0.501-0.511). For right-sided colon cancer, there was moderate agreement between clinical and pathologic T stage (Kappa = 0.594, 95%CI: 0.589-0.599) and N stage (Kappa = 0.530, 95%CI: 0.523-0.537). For left-sided colon cancer, there was substantial agreement between clinical and pathologic T stage (Kappa = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.619-0.630) and moderate agreement between N stage (Kappa 0.472, 95%CI: 0.463-0.480). Sensitivity of clinical assessment of T and N stage ranged from 64.3% to 77.2% and 41.6% to 54.5%, respectively. Specificity ranged from 96.7% to 97.7% for T stage and 95.7% to 97.3% for N stage.
conclusionsClinical assessment of T and N stages of colon cancer had good diagnostic accuracy with moderate concordance with the final pathologic stage. While clinical assessment was highly specific with < 3% of patients being over-staged, it had modest sensitivity, especially for detection of nodal involvement. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment of right and left colon cancers was similar, except for higher sensitivity and accuracy of assessment of nodal involvement in right than left colon cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.